ianlouisiana The rise of Fascism,the persecution of Jews and the abdication were key to our society in the 1930s and they are viewed in "Upstairs Downstairs" through the eyes of the occupants of an imposing residence in one of London's best addresses. Crucial to the first series being re - shown on "Drama" is the redoubtable Miss E.Atkins as the matriarchal figure. Irredeemably "posh" and late Victorian Empire builder she may be,but she's no fool and can sense weakness in both her son and his wife which she sets out to eradicate by subtle and not so subtle means so that the status quo can be properly maintained. Her equivalent below stairs is Miss J.Marsh who has more compassion but is equally determined to maintain the status quo amongst the servants. Between them the house is run just about a well as it could be in such turbulent times. As Mr Stoppard and Miss Hawes seem out of their comfort zones it falls to this veteran pair to carry the show,which they do,at least when one or other is on screen. Butler aside,the servants have unfortunately little to flesh out,and should have been told to watch the rapport between the domestic staff achieved by the performers and writers of "You rang,me lord?",an exemplary combination of skill and experience. I prefer the new "Upstairs Downstairs" to the pretension and overacting of "Downton Abbey",but I'm pretty sure that puts me in a minority. The sheer quality of these shows stood out on a cold dark winter afternoon in Norfolk and nothing on TV the rest of the day came even close to equalling them.

mar9tin I understand the Duke of Kent was bisexual, and no doubt many women were, too, or lesbian, but I see little point in pandering to it, except to concede that the series is, in fact, slanted towards to a feminine audience. I think tho that largely underestimates its value, because, soap opera or not, Upstairs Downstairs is better conceived, better plotted, better written, better cast, better directed, better acted, better staged, better filmed, better everything, than Downton Abbey, the latter's four Emmys and 9.0 IMDb rating IMHO furnishing any additional proof needed. I see little point, tho, in regurgitating either world war, except, again, to pander to British pride and liberal sentiment.Since the six episodes of "Season 2" have not yet aired in the US, some many not understand what I'm saying, or why, and I won't therefore enlighten them further, except to say I told you so.

Leofwine_draca I'm too young to have seen the original, 1970s UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS but I understand this three-part miniseries is supposed to be a continuation of the same story/situation. It was broadcast by the BBC on three consecutive nights, beginning Boxing Day 2010.Many naysayers remarked that this series was hurriedly conceived to cash in on the success of ITV's rival drama, DOWNTON ABBEY. Having seen some episodes of DOWNTON, I have to admit that it's vastly superior to what we have here. In terms of character interaction alone, DOWNTON wins hands down because UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS never for a moment features the kind of master-servant interaction you'd expect from the title.The two classes lead totally separate lives and involved in pretty much unconnected story lines. Downstairs, there's a rebellious maid who wears nail polish and a butler who used to work on a cruise ship. Upstairs, dead-eyed Keeley Hawes is pregnant and her younger sister's a bit of a tearaway. That's it in terms of decent plotting.The characters are dull and because the cast is so large we never get a feel for any of them, so decent actors like Art Malik are wasted while others go through the motions. There's a whiff of political correctness in the air and things only pick up later on with the introduction of a back plot involving the rise of Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts, but again that has little to do with the premise of the show. A bit of a missed opportunity, then, and another example of the BBC's desperate attempts to make money.

Robert There once was a BBC series called "Upstairs, Downstairs". It was an understated (if occasionally tear-jerking) class study about the way that the upper classes depended upon their servants and the way their servants found dignity in their employment. This miniseries has just three things in common with it: the title, Jean Marsh, and the house's address. EVERYTHING else is wrong, and a travesty of the sort of thoughtful, nuanced plots and characterizations in the original. If anything, this show clearly delineates just how far the BBC has slipped in its inexorable slide into smarmy sensationalism and politically-correct pandering to approved identity politics, and middlebrow tastes and mores. Doubt me? Take a look: 1. They try to sexy things up with a female family member having a barely-concealed affair with a male servant. That would've been unthinkable in the original series, and unthinkable in reality in the 1930s. Any head-of-house even suspecting such a dalliance would've sacked the servant and, in all likelihood, have him thrown in jail (or worse). I suppose I should be surprised they didn't make the servant black, for good measure. Yes, yes -- men in such households dallied with servant girls but, double-standard tho' it was, the other way 'round was unthinkable.2. They have to yank on the heartstrings (and assuage the guilt of the British public who were largely indifferent to the plight of the Jews) by having a Jewish refugee arrive as a new maid -- who (naturally) had once been an upper-class lady, and turns out to be one of the most noble characters (cue the violins). And, since simply making her out to be a victim in five respects wasn't enough (a persecuted Jewess, a foreigner, a virtual widow, a mother separated from her child, and being reduced to servitude), they then have to kill her off with...asthma. I'm surprised they didn't give her a wooden leg and a speech impediment as well.3. The other most "noble" character is, of course, non-white -- the virtuous Hindu. We are expected to feel outrage and pity because he is somewhat excluded from the family's intimacy. Never mind the fact that he (1) came from a lower-class family and (2) is now living in comfort and security at the largess of the Holland family, in exchange for having to type up Lady Holland's memoirs. Oh, the indignity! -the outrage! (cue fist shaking at the sky) 4. The casting of the original was pretty much flawless. The casting here is seriously uneven -- the biggest clanger being "Hallum Holland" (what WERE they smoking when they came up with that gem of alliteration?!) who simply does not look remotely like a British aristocrat. A Chippendale's dancer, a gay beefcake model, an Italian gigolo, yes. A British aristocrat, no. This was a key role, and no amount of eyebrow-furrowing or eye-flashing can make up for the fact that he's utterly miscast.5. Ham-fisted irony: the humble houseboy, whose mother gives him a picture for his wall that admonishes "Blessed are the Meek", is named "Johnny Proude". Oh, the IRONY! DO YOU GET IT?! HUMBLE! MEEK! And yet: PROUDE! Where do we get these ideas, you ask? From Sainsbury's, in a handy 4-pack! 6. Behold: the world's most annoying, in-your-face maid, "Ivy Morris". She sings! She dances! She's a lovable little scamp, always up for a spunky remark, a shag with another servant, or a heartfelt sob. Imagine an 18 year-old Little Orphan Annie after too much cocaine and you'll have her character pegged. Strewth.7. And direct from Central Casting: the Eccentric, Controlling Mother! She has a pet monkey, fer chrissakes! She's ridden elephants! Is that crazy or what?!!1! Clearly, this is an "Upstairs, Downstairs" for an audience who was weaned on 1990s sitcoms and dramedies, who read tabloids and hates anyone that they believe is more privileged then they are. An audience who thinks in black and white, who is incapable of connecting dots or grasping subtleties, who accepts every stereotype of victimhood and is quick to condemn any tradition as the province of the enemy.Really, it's remarkable that Britain today is actually a first-world nation, prosperous and low in crime, when you consider that this show depicts it as having been built and run by people who are shallow, vapid, helpless, prejudiced and/or downright evil. And probably child-molesting Satan-worshipers too. Yes, Britain must've been built by gnomes, aided by noble non-Caucasians, noble non-Protestants and noble (insert whatever other minority happens to be fashionable at the moment). Handicapped lesbian Chinese dwarfs, mostly.What this show *really* should've been called is "Upstairs, Downstairs 2: Revenge of the Servants". Because after all, rooting for the underdog is more than just a sporting notion: it's now MANDATORY.